At the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on Thursday, a rather tense contempt appeal took an unexpected turn when the Division Bench comprising Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary decided to set aside a previous punishment issued for non-payment of interim maintenance. The atmosphere in Court No. 9 was a mix of caution and relief, as both sides appeared ready to move forward after months of back-and-forth.
Background
The case emerges from an interim order passed in December 2023 in a pending criminal revision concerning a maintenance dispute under Section 125 CrPC. The revisional court had directed the husband to pay ₹10,000 per month as maintenance and clear arrears in three instalments starting January 2024.
But as things unfolded, the payment never came. Not a rupee since December 2023 this was repeatedly stressed by the opposite party before the contempt court. After several adjournments, exemption pleas, and what the court later described as “willful non-compliance,” the contempt judge had in October 2025 sentenced the husband to two months’ simple imprisonment along with a ₹2,000 fine.
That order became the subject of the present appeal.
Court’s Observations
When the appeal was heard, counsel for the appellant opened with a candid admission: financial hardship had prevented compliance. But he added something that shifted the tone of the proceedings two demand drafts totaling ₹3,25,000 had now been prepared in the wife’s name.
The bench looked closely at the drafts one for ₹1,00,000 and another for ₹2,25,000. Counsel for the opposite party did not dispute receipt, but maintained that the earlier non-payment was deliberate. Even so, he conceded that with the drafts in hand, “any appropriate order may be passed.”
From the bench, there was a clear expression of concern about repeated delays. At one point, the judges remarked,
“The expectation now is that neither side misuses adjournments. The revisional court must be allowed to conclude the matter without further obstruction.”
The bench also commented on the earlier conduct that led to the contempt finding, noting that the appellant had avoided personal appearance multiple times, including on medical grounds, even after charges were framed. However, the submission that the delay was “not intentional” but due to financial constraints was taken into account.
Decision
Ultimately, the High Court chose a balanced route. The judges set aside the contempt punishment but with a strong warning attached. The two drafts were formally handed over in court, with the bench recording the acknowledgment on file.
In its final direction, the court stated that the revocation of the prison sentence and fine was based purely on the present compliance and the expectation of full cooperation ahead. The bench ordered that the pending criminal revision be heard expeditiously and added a cautionary note: any future violation of the revisional court’s directions would allow the opposite party to initiate fresh legal action.
With that, the appeal was allowed, and the matter ended squarely at the point of the court’s decision exactly where the judges intended to draw the line.
Case Title:- X and Y
Case Number: Contempt Appeal No. 5 of 2025
